October 25, 2014, 04:48:07 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
31
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:24:52 PM »
Just out of curiosity, I ran the numbers for these rumored lenses for 'hand-holdability'. Here's the breakdown:

The 50mm f/1.8 IS would tie the 35mm f/2 IS for 'most handholdable':
EV 0 = 35mm | f2 | 0.4 sec | ISO 1000
EV 0 = 50mm | f1.8 | 0.5 sec | ISO 1000

A 50mm f/1.4 IS would be the new 'most handholdable' lens:
EV 0 = 50mm | f1.4 | 0.5 sec | ISO 640

The 85mm f/1.8 IS would be
EV 0 = 85mm | f1.8 | 1/6 sec | ISO 2000

And 135mm f/1.8, 2 and 2.8 would be
EV 0 = 135mm | f1.8 | 1/10 sec | ISO 3200
EV 0 = 135mm | f2 | 1/10 sec | ISO 4000
EV 0 = 135mm | f2.8 | 1/10 sec | ISO 8000

Nothing important, just thought I'd share what I found.

32
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 11, 2013, 05:26:29 PM »
Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too.  But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market.  You know, just to make sure they get it right!

Oh, you mean like ultrasonic motors (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 1998)?
Or image stabilization in 35mm lenses (Canon: 1995, Nikon: 2000)?
Or electromagnetic aperture mechanisms (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 2008)?
How about full frame digital sensors (Canon: 2002, Nikon: 2007)?
Or CMOS sensors for DSLRs (Canon: 2000, Nikon: 2004)?
Built in teleconverter (Canon: 1984 [2012 for AF], Nikon: never)?

Yeah, like those.

I know I have cherry-picked a few examples, but you can't possibly think that Nikon is a substantially faster-moving and more innovative company overall.  And that 1.7x TC you desire, there are two versions for Nikon: 1) that works only with AF-S and AF-I lenses, and 2) a version that is manual focus only for all lenses.  Own an nice AF 300mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8D?  Tough luck, no AF for you (not that Nikon AF lenses are fast by anyone's definition).

Grass still greener?

33
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 11, 2013, 10:02:49 AM »
Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?

I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small.  Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec).  What does the CR community think of such a replacement?

You can handhold a 24-105 IS for .8 seconds at 24mm, can't you?  I think I've done it...well at least for .5 seconds.  Of course that's an f/4 lens...One of the shots I posted in the "anything shot with a 6D" thread, was at 105mm handheld, I think for 1/8 or 1/5 of a second, ISO 5000...was during the "blue hour".

I think Zeiss should make an f/1.4 wide angle zoom that autofocuses, has tilt shift, along with IS, weather sealing, and magnesium/carbon fiber construction...for $500!  :P
That is not what I was trying to say, at all.  Carl, you are one of the most argumentative and unreasonable people on this forum, your level of discourse brings the entire community down. 

It is not unreasonable to say that Canon will replace the 20mm f/2.8 in the near future with IS, if they are replacing the 85mm f/1.8 USM with an IS version.  Price should be pretty comparable to the 24/28/35mm IS primes.  My assumption of this future lens was in no way unrealistic.

Also, a stop faster lens means either: 1) a lower ISO for less noise, or 2) even lower light levels than the 24-105mm f/4L.  I'm sure you can get sharp pictures at 24mm at 0.8 sec with a somewhat acceptable keeper rate, but a wider, 20mm lens should in-theory increase that keeper rate (especially with the newest IS version and a fixed focal length lens that they can really optimized its effectiveness).  I'm not trying to convince you I'm right, but your tendency to denegrate fellow forum members is disturbing.

EDIT: Sorry if I misread the tone of your post, I just noticed the tongue smiley.

34
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 10, 2013, 04:33:16 PM »
I raised the camera [1Dx and 600mm f/4L IS II USM with 2.0x III TC] that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.
I want to see a picture of that (rig hanging on a BR), it sounds rather epic.  Please tell me you have a DR-2 and had your EOS M and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on the other side.

35
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 10, 2013, 04:12:49 PM »
Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?

I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small.  Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec).  What does the CR community think of such a replacement?

36
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 06, 2013, 01:48:11 PM »
I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.

Relative to the 200-400 I'd expect to sacrifice some image and build quality but in return get significant $ in my pocket and a relatively lighter lens.  I'm going to set my flag at the $8000 price point.  I would not be surprised if it was even lower.

Like I said, I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.
Why would you say that?  It will be about the same size as the existing 200-400, with a longer reach.  Frankly, I'm not sure why they would produce this lens.  How is it any different than buying a 200-400 and a 1.4x III?  With these two items you'll have almost identical ranges of 280-560mm f/5.6 and 400-800mm f/8, with the added benefit of using it natively without the TC as a 200-400mm f/4.  Granted, Canon could optimize the lens better to have slightly better IQ without double-stacked 1.4x TCs, but does that really justify this lens?  The front element will be slightly larger (107mm vs. 100mm, theoretical), the rumored lens will likely be longer and weigh slightly more, so no size/weigh advantage exists.  And I'd imagine with its longer reach it will be more expensive than the current offering + the cost of a 1.4x TC.  Anyone have any other ideas about this rumored lens' raison d'être?

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Cleaning Suggestions
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:20:31 PM »
OK, looks like I'm going to get an sensor brush, a pack of green swabs and VDust Plus.  Thanks for the help.

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Camera Cleaning Suggestions
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:00:29 PM »
I have had some dust specs on my sensor for quiet a while, and I'm tried of using clone/healing to correct the spots on nice blue skies.  Any suggestions for who to send it to?  What is your experience with turnaround time and price?  I've been considering Canon, KEH, and Pro Camera Repair.  I'd rather not do the cleaning myself, and would like to leave it in the hands of a professional and absolve myself of any liability.  Let me know your experiences, and any places to use or to avoid.  Also, I'm not a CPS member or anything, so whatever I go with will be at full price.  I'd like to send it out this week and have it back the week before Christmas.

39
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 01:24:35 PM »
If the "Year of the Lens" turns out to be just slapping IS on some existing lenses, I will be highly disappointed.
Um, have you seen the 35mm IS versus the old 35mm f/2?: TDP Link
Or versus even the 35mm f/1.4L (at f/2): TDP Link

You can't tell me that lens is not impressive considering its size and price.  I know its not nearly as impressive as the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, but it's also much smaller and costs half as much.  On paper it is the most hand-holdable lens ever made (using the 1/FL rule of thumb, a sharp picture could be had at 1/2 to 1/2.5 sec).

The 24mm IS and 28mm IS are just as good, and I, for one, welcome our new higher-quality non-L lenses.  I think I'll probably pick up the 50mm when it is released.  I wasn't happy with the 50mm 1.8II or 50mm 1.8 I, and I think the focusing definitely needs improvement on the 50mm 1.4 (especially when used with a focusing system like the 5D Mark I).

40
Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2013, 10:00:40 PM »
Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.

I think the question is whether they can be as graceful at starting and stopping their refocus as the STMs.  For video, speed of focus is secondary to smoothness.
And noise as well. From everything I've heard, STM is quieter than USM (even the newest USM lenses like 24, 28 and 35mm IS primes). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 25, 2013, 04:53:55 PM »
You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR!
Unfortunately incorrect -

Contax N Digital - July 2000
Kodak DCS Pro 14n - Sept 2002
Canon 1Ds - Sept 2002
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n - Feb 2004
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c - Mar 2004
Canon 1Ds Mark II - Sept 2004
Canon 5D - August 2005
Canon 1Ds Mark III - Aug 2007
Nikon D3 - Aug 2007
Nikon D700 - Jul 2008
Sony DSLR-A900 - Sept 2008

If you were to say the first FF DSLR by a company that is still in business, or the first FF DSLR that was commerically viable then you would be correct (Contax was a total flop, and Kodak didn't survive long either, despite adopting cameras with both Nikon and Canon lens mounts).

42
Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2013, 03:52:17 PM »
Observation:

There is only one EF lens with STM (the 40mm f/2.8 STM along side the 3 EF-S and 3 EF-M STM lenses).  When they release a full frame camera that utilizes DPAF (IMO less than 18 months from now) they will be in desperate need of a whole range of EF lenses to go along with the advanced movie AF.  I say 2 or 3 lenses next year will be FF and have STM motors.  If they want to make their cinema customers euphoric they will make said lenses parfocal and with very little focus breathing (unlikely, as I'm sure they want to protect their Cinema line of cameras and lenses).  I know one of the big drawbacks of the 40mm f/2.8 STM for movie making is the fact that it has so much focus breathing (a function of its pancake design).

43
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 05:48:06 PM »
Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....
Are you saying Canon has never had the megapixel crown since 2002 (excluding MF competition)?  Because that is an outright lie.

1994 - Kodak DCS420 - 2MP
1995 - Kodak DCS460 - 6MP
2002 - Kodak DCS Pro 14n - 14MP (released just prior to Canon 1Ds, 11MP; Nikon's 12MP D2X came in 2004)
2004 - Canon 1Ds Mark II - 16MP
2007 - Canon 1Ds Mark III - 21MP (followed by Canon 5D Mark II in 2008)
2008 - Sony A900 - 24MP (followed by 24MP Nikon D3X in late 2008, and Sony A850 in 2009)
2012 - Nikon D800/D800E - 36MP (followed by Sony A7R in 2013)
2013 - Nokia Lumia 1020 - 41MP (I know, rediculous inclusion - facts remain)

Canon had the highest resolution sensor for a solid 4 years until Sony came out with it's 24MP FF sensor. 

Leaderboard (for those keeping score):
   Kodak - 10 years
   Nikon - 6 years and counting (4 shared jointly with Sony, Nokia excluded)
   Canon - 4 years
   Sony - 4 years and counting

44
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 01:12:59 PM »
When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.

The point of citing sales figures is that profit is the primary driver for publicly-traded companies like Canon and Nikon, and what they care about is developing products that will sell well and provide a return on investment, not products that will please a minority segment of the market that happens to be very vocal on internet forums. 

You may not find it interesting, but that's the reality of business...and the reality that determines what products are available to purchase (or in some cases, products that people have no intention of purchasing, but choose to complain about anyway).   

I'd also suggest that elaborating on a rational viewpoint is more interesting than a weak, one-line 'refutation'.
Exactly.  Same reasoning that Nikon's currently weak profitability has caused them to announce consolidation of camera lines to offer fewer products (in point and shoot lines) and focus on entry-level equipment (interchangable formats) to stengthen their financial situation:

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/16/nikon-qa-low-inventory-high-profit-margins-cost-cutting-fewer-models.aspx/

Think the group of vocal Nikon enthusiasts asking for their D300s replacement will ever get it?

45
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 11:16:57 AM »
... This camera will be Canon’s first foray into the high megapixel realm for a DSLR.
What is your definition of high megapixel?  Back in 2002 when the 1Ds was announced, 11MP was a lot compared to most other DSLRs at 6 or less, and most P&S cameras less than 5MP.  In 2005 16MP was considered 'high resolution' (1Ds Mark II).  Same with 21MP in 2007 with the 1Ds Mark III.

I completely understand what you are saying, but it's not like Canon has never been competitive on the MP front, as they have definitely worn the megapixel crown a few times.  Now in the modern era (since Sept 2009) they have constantly lagged behind Nikon and Sony with full frame cameras (21MP vs 24; 22 vs 36), but lead in the APS-C lines from Sept 2009 through August 2011 with the 18MP sensors, until being superceded by Sony's 24MP sensor in the A65 and A77.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28